Title: Coal Country Director: Phyllis Geller Release year: 2009
note: produced in part by the Sierra Club
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film focuses on some of the sustainability problems associated with the energy dependence of our society. It looks into the coal industry in particular which provides the United States with a significant percentage of our energy supply. The film highlights the devastating effects the coal industry can have on communities and the environment. One of the primary foci of the film is the issue of mountaintop removal which has formed the landscape of many Appalachian states into “undulating green hills interrupted by plateau’s where everything has been destroyed.”
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
This film draws out a number of different sustainability problems associated with the coal and energy industry. The main issue that is discussed is the devastation to the communities in which the mining occurs. Between 1979 and 2009 approximately 550 additional deaths occur in coal mining areas over normal Appalachia or countrywide averages. In the film a home water filter was shown that was completely black after only 3 months. Much of the water in these areas is unsafe to drink. Significant numbers of gall bladder, heart and pituitary problems exist across much of the “coal country.” One home owner noted a decrease from $144,000 to $12,000 for his home appraisal value which is primarily because of the coal industry coming to his area and bringing dust and poor living conditions along with it. All of these things demonstrate the effect coal mining can have on the standard of living and health of people within these communities.
Many of these issues can be correlated to ecological sustainability problems as well. Over 100,000 miles of streams are in potential of being destroyed every decade into the future because of mountaintop removal and coal mining. Companies are obliged to perform reclamation on mountains after the mining occurs (resurfacing the land, vegetation and trees are planted etc…) but the unique biodiversity of the wildlife and mountain landscape will never return. Also 130 million tons of coal combustion waste is generated from coal burning power plants each year. The coal industry contributes to degradation of the environment at every stage of its production and use.
There are also significant economic and cultural sustainability problems within the local communities of these Appalachian states. The film quotes Upton Sinclair noting “it’s hard to get a man to understand something when their paychecks depend on them not understanding it.” West Virginia, a large coal producer is the poorest state in the country and the only jobs largely available other than flipping burgers is within the coal industry. Coal companies desire this scenario as they benefit from these poor people becoming dependent on them to fight for the industry despite receiving poor working conditions and all the other problems they create. These coal counties have developed some pride in what they do despite its problems. It gives them a job and gives their families a life which makes it very hard to speak out against it and bring about change. Why are these counties so poor though when millions of pounds of coal are being taken away by the day? Other wealthier counties are thriving off tourism in the form of things like white water rafting and fishing or camping but people don’t want to do these things in coal mining areas. People fail to see the economic potential of their community if the coal industry is not developed and perpetuated.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
One issue that was discussed in the film that I found very persuasive was the implementation by the coal companies of coal slurry impoundments. The impurities within the mined coal is removed before transportation creating a waste stream known as coal slurry which is put into what essentially amounts to a big dammed up lake of waste. These huge pools are often very close to communities and one that was highlighted held 2 billion gallons of slurry and was established in a valley between mountains. The coal industry looks to reclamation for remediation of sites after they are finished mining but how can a pit of slurry be reclaimed back into something resembling a valley?
Another issue that seemed both persuasive and ironic was that people in coal producing areas are some of the poorest in the country but they are still worried about losing the coal industry because it will ruin their economy. Arguably the coal industry is perpetuating their meager economy and although instantaneously their economy would be destroyed in the long term it could bring about better standards of living for everyone.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
Some of the interviews or particular segments of the films described what seemed to be arguments for the coal industry. One person questioned in the film said that they felt that the vocal minority got more attention than they deserve (talking about environmentalists). Also shown was an interview with a coal employee who was getting very emotional about the idea of limiting the coal industry or eliminating it. These examples can help show the arguments that environmentalists and the local population may be up against in attempting to remedy many of these situations but I found these segments of the film to be very disconcerting.
What additional information does the film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?
One thing I kept thinking while watching the film was; how much coal is there in these mountains? Is there some mountains that don’t and others that do have coal or could the entirety of the Appalachian region be completely flattened to extract these coal reserves. As oil runs out or reaches peak prices will more and more mountains be mined to subsidize our energy demand? It doesn’t mention if coal prices have been increasing or if shortages or a diminishing supply is eminent. Obviously we will run out of it eventually but I found it to be a little interesting point of view where this film focused primarily on environmental impacts where most of the oil films we have viewed focus on peak oil and how our society will change as we run out of it.
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
The primary target audience should be the people who live in the coal country states. This problem could best solved through local initiatives and this film is likely to inform the population of these states about problems that are around them if they aren’t already aware of them. Others outside of this area will be less likely to act on these issues as they are more indirectly affected by the problems. Everyone could serve to learn about what is involved in meeting their energy needs though. Another niche audience this film could address is the people who enjoy outdoor sports and hiking who may become advocates for the mountains themselves along with the people of the area.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
One area of action that was highlighted in the film was through government regulation of the industry and of the environment. The film documented a lawyer’s efforts to change the effect of the coal industry on these areas through environmental protection legislation. Joe Lovett attempted to sue a corporation and the state EPA for violations to the clean water act and was able to receive a temporary restraining order on a particular mine from polluting local streams. He then fought for enforcement of buffer zones for all intermittent or perennial streams in which companies could not mine within 100ft of these water sources. Also there is a push to get mining outputs to be considered as waste where it is now largely considered as fill which can be dumped into streams and water sources. All of this information demonstrates how government intervention into the industry can help bring about limitations on the corporations.
The film also talks briefly about clean coal. This essentially consists of carbon capture and sequestration. This is the industries solution to the problems associated with global warming and coal. The documentary negates this argument saying it can’t be a long term solution and we can’t put carbon underground forever and we don’t know what will happen if we attempt to do so. These “clean coal” plants also fail deal with the main problems presented in this film associated with mountaintop removal. The primary solutions to these problems according to the film are in the form of alternative energy to reduce the need for coal based energy. The film looks to geothermal, solar and other alternative energies to eventually replace the 40 to 50% of our energy that now comes from coal. One solution that was suggested that I found interesting was putting wind turbines on the mountains themselves instead of removing the mountains.
The documentary also points out that coal companies can’t stop people from talking. It advocates bringing about exposure to the world about these issues. Also it noted that the people of Appalachia have and need to inform themselves and rally behind these issues in order to bring about change for themselves.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
The film did seem somewhat overly balanced. At certain points throughout the film (as discussed in the parts of the film found to be unconvincing) it appeared that they contradicted the points they were trying to make by providing alternative views without any indication that they were doing so.
Also the film could have attempted to address what people could do if they are not within these communities themselves. Where is the best point of intervention, through government or through corporations? The fact that it is sponsored by the Sierra Club in an effort to bring about change within this industry could enhance its effectiveness at getting to a larger audience and giving it a degree of clout within society.
Director: Phyllis Geller
Release year: 2009
note: produced in part by the Sierra Club
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film focuses on some of the sustainability problems associated with the energy dependence of our society. It looks into the coal industry in particular which provides the United States with a significant percentage of our energy supply. The film highlights the devastating effects the coal industry can have on communities and the environment. One of the primary foci of the film is the issue of mountaintop removal which has formed the landscape of many Appalachian states into “undulating green hills interrupted by plateau’s where everything has been destroyed.”
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
This film draws out a number of different sustainability problems associated with the coal and energy industry. The main issue that is discussed is the devastation to the communities in which the mining occurs. Between 1979 and 2009 approximately 550 additional deaths occur in coal mining areas over normal Appalachia or countrywide averages. In the film a home water filter was shown that was completely black after only 3 months. Much of the water in these areas is unsafe to drink. Significant numbers of gall bladder, heart and pituitary problems exist across much of the “coal country.” One home owner noted a decrease from $144,000 to $12,000 for his home appraisal value which is primarily because of the coal industry coming to his area and bringing dust and poor living conditions along with it. All of these things demonstrate the effect coal mining can have on the standard of living and health of people within these communities.
Many of these issues can be correlated to ecological sustainability problems as well. Over 100,000 miles of streams are in potential of being destroyed every decade into the future because of mountaintop removal and coal mining. Companies are obliged to perform reclamation on mountains after the mining occurs (resurfacing the land, vegetation and trees are planted etc…) but the unique biodiversity of the wildlife and mountain landscape will never return. Also 130 million tons of coal combustion waste is generated from coal burning power plants each year. The coal industry contributes to degradation of the environment at every stage of its production and use.
There are also significant economic and cultural sustainability problems within the local communities of these Appalachian states. The film quotes Upton Sinclair noting “it’s hard to get a man to understand something when their paychecks depend on them not understanding it.” West Virginia, a large coal producer is the poorest state in the country and the only jobs largely available other than flipping burgers is within the coal industry. Coal companies desire this scenario as they benefit from these poor people becoming dependent on them to fight for the industry despite receiving poor working conditions and all the other problems they create. These coal counties have developed some pride in what they do despite its problems. It gives them a job and gives their families a life which makes it very hard to speak out against it and bring about change. Why are these counties so poor though when millions of pounds of coal are being taken away by the day? Other wealthier counties are thriving off tourism in the form of things like white water rafting and fishing or camping but people don’t want to do these things in coal mining areas. People fail to see the economic potential of their community if the coal industry is not developed and perpetuated.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
One issue that was discussed in the film that I found very persuasive was the implementation by the coal companies of coal slurry impoundments. The impurities within the mined coal is removed before transportation creating a waste stream known as coal slurry which is put into what essentially amounts to a big dammed up lake of waste. These huge pools are often very close to communities and one that was highlighted held 2 billion gallons of slurry and was established in a valley between mountains. The coal industry looks to reclamation for remediation of sites after they are finished mining but how can a pit of slurry be reclaimed back into something resembling a valley?
Another issue that seemed both persuasive and ironic was that people in coal producing areas are some of the poorest in the country but they are still worried about losing the coal industry because it will ruin their economy. Arguably the coal industry is perpetuating their meager economy and although instantaneously their economy would be destroyed in the long term it could bring about better standards of living for everyone.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
Some of the interviews or particular segments of the films described what seemed to be arguments for the coal industry. One person questioned in the film said that they felt that the vocal minority got more attention than they deserve (talking about environmentalists). Also shown was an interview with a coal employee who was getting very emotional about the idea of limiting the coal industry or eliminating it. These examples can help show the arguments that environmentalists and the local population may be up against in attempting to remedy many of these situations but I found these segments of the film to be very disconcerting.
What additional information does the film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?
One thing I kept thinking while watching the film was; how much coal is there in these mountains? Is there some mountains that don’t and others that do have coal or could the entirety of the Appalachian region be completely flattened to extract these coal reserves. As oil runs out or reaches peak prices will more and more mountains be mined to subsidize our energy demand? It doesn’t mention if coal prices have been increasing or if shortages or a diminishing supply is eminent. Obviously we will run out of it eventually but I found it to be a little interesting point of view where this film focused primarily on environmental impacts where most of the oil films we have viewed focus on peak oil and how our society will change as we run out of it.
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
The primary target audience should be the people who live in the coal country states. This problem could best solved through local initiatives and this film is likely to inform the population of these states about problems that are around them if they aren’t already aware of them. Others outside of this area will be less likely to act on these issues as they are more indirectly affected by the problems. Everyone could serve to learn about what is involved in meeting their energy needs though. Another niche audience this film could address is the people who enjoy outdoor sports and hiking who may become advocates for the mountains themselves along with the people of the area.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
One area of action that was highlighted in the film was through government regulation of the industry and of the environment. The film documented a lawyer’s efforts to change the effect of the coal industry on these areas through environmental protection legislation. Joe Lovett attempted to sue a corporation and the state EPA for violations to the clean water act and was able to receive a temporary restraining order on a particular mine from polluting local streams. He then fought for enforcement of buffer zones for all intermittent or perennial streams in which companies could not mine within 100ft of these water sources. Also there is a push to get mining outputs to be considered as waste where it is now largely considered as fill which can be dumped into streams and water sources. All of this information demonstrates how government intervention into the industry can help bring about limitations on the corporations.
The film also talks briefly about clean coal. This essentially consists of carbon capture and sequestration. This is the industries solution to the problems associated with global warming and coal. The documentary negates this argument saying it can’t be a long term solution and we can’t put carbon underground forever and we don’t know what will happen if we attempt to do so. These “clean coal” plants also fail deal with the main problems presented in this film associated with mountaintop removal. The primary solutions to these problems according to the film are in the form of alternative energy to reduce the need for coal based energy. The film looks to geothermal, solar and other alternative energies to eventually replace the 40 to 50% of our energy that now comes from coal. One solution that was suggested that I found interesting was putting wind turbines on the mountains themselves instead of removing the mountains.
The documentary also points out that coal companies can’t stop people from talking. It advocates bringing about exposure to the world about these issues. Also it noted that the people of Appalachia have and need to inform themselves and rally behind these issues in order to bring about change for themselves.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
The film did seem somewhat overly balanced. At certain points throughout the film (as discussed in the parts of the film found to be unconvincing) it appeared that they contradicted the points they were trying to make by providing alternative views without any indication that they were doing so.
Also the film could have attempted to address what people could do if they are not within these communities themselves. Where is the best point of intervention, through government or through corporations? The fact that it is sponsored by the Sierra Club in an effort to bring about change within this industry could enhance its effectiveness at getting to a larger audience and giving it a degree of clout within society.